Andrew Sullivan recently linked to a Michael Siegel blog response to one of Sullivan’s own posts in which he wondered aloud how often Hollywood has chosen to recognize the brutilization of women in Islamic countries, an idea that seems right in the liberal wheelhouse. I think Siegel makes some interesting points.
Siegel specifically mentions communism and Cuba in his post. And it is true, Hollywood has by-in-large ignored the numerous negative points of the U.S.S.R. and Cuba. One comment mentions that Americans tend to make movies about America. This is true and America is tied very closely to the U.S.S.R. and Cuba in terms of 20th century history. So in a sense it really surprises me that no major motion pictures have been developed to depict and educate Americans about the truth in Cuba and the severe oppression and violence in the formation and sustentation of the U.S.S.R.
Yet on the other hand as I reflect on the resurgence of more liberal-minded studio pictures I can’t help but think money is at the core of the issue. My initial response to these movies was if Hollywood felt Americans would flock to a movie about an oppressed maiden in Saudi Arabia Hollywood would make the movie in a heartbeat. If the swell of American pride was such that it would support a movie depicting the atrocious regime of Stalin (and as follows prop up our American ideals), then California would spit out a movie as quickly as possible. But in reality Americans are more negative to the Bush wars than ever and Hollywood stepped in to make some cash on the change of tide. I lean toward the idea that Hollywood doesn’t make ideologies but reflects the ideologies of its consumers. To me a conservative should be applauding the markets at work.
While I think it would be supremely interesting to see some more films about the reality of Russian communism and the reality of Castro’s regime, I’d also like to see some major Hollywood movies about the atrocities committed by the Japanese against the Koreans and Chinese during World War II. If one believes in a liberal-or-bust Hollywood, then one would have to wonder why we don’t see a movie on this subject every year. After all, it’d turn the communist Chinese into very sympathetic characters since I believe those events indirectly spurred the communist parties success in China. Strangely we’ve seen more movies about the Dali Lama and Tibet than the Rape of Nanking.
Another case in point. Major distributors were very stand-offish with “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Disney didn’t want to distribute it under their own umbrella (Miramax). Even when they realized it was going to make substantial money, Disney backed off. Where’s the liberal bias there. “Fahrenheit 9/11″ is actually an example of a business acting against its own self interest. It’s certainly not a looney liberal example.
I think Siegel’s parting thought is the major key, more so than the “liberals in Hollywood” argument. As is plainly obvious in the mainstream media’s reluctance to print the Mohammed cartoons, fear keeps Hollywood from greenlighting a clearly anti-Islamist movie. If there were no concerns about Islamist retaliation then perhaps Hollywood would step out of its box. Does this make the elite of Hollywood cowards? Maybe, but are they any more cowardly than you or I?
Comments (11)
I’m interested by the assumption that ‘Liberal’ filmmakers would be the ones to draw attention the brutalization of women in Islamic countries. Is the implication that conservatives support the brutalization of women in Islamic countries, or that they just don’t care enough to make a movie about it?
I would be more inclined to think that a conservative filmmaker would want to make a film of this nature in support the war in Iraq (a truly unpopular position at this point in time). If a movie of this nature came out, Liberals would almost certainly assume that Bush supporters had a hand in it.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the below, but I’ll just try to flesh out the argument a little more.
I don’t think the claim is that Republicans support brutalization. Even if the conservative ideal is to leave people to their own devices, I’d never say this meant a conservative would support brutilization. The statements are more about the left. The left is the propenent of equal rights in this country (e.g. affirmative action, women’s rights). So the implication is that the left is hypocritical for not drawing attention to the brutalization of women in Islamic countries. I’m sure one could argue that when it comes down to it, the right is actually being more genuine in its support for liberal democracy and protecting the basic human rights of all citizens around the world.
In this argument, the important thing for the liberals would appear not to be standing up for their base morals of equal rights for all, but rather to guard against anything that could shine a positive light on Republican policy. Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
As the argument would go, the liberal power structure of Hollywood does not trust us to take a movie opening our eyes to the brutilzation of women in Islamic countries at face value. They are more worried that by extension we will then support the President in all he does. In reality it sure seems like a true conservative (especially an isolationist conservative) should be a helluva a lot madder at the President today than any liberal.
And naturally, if a conservative were to make this film it would be considered a bunch of propoganda.
Regarding that Wiki quote, I think you’re confusing the American and European definitions of liberal, especially the part about free choice within an open competitive process and the free market, concepts that American liberals are a lot more skeptical about.
On the whole, I agree that Hollywood studios are inclined to produce movies that will make money, regardless of idealogy. However, similar to Sullivan’s complaint, it’s telling that American liberals were silent about the murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn. Or perhaps since both those murders were committed either by Muslims or sympathetic Dutch leftists, the point about fear and intimidation takes precedence.
I think you nail it with this:
Anybody But Bush.
I’ll admit that the implication that I derived from your statement ‘an idea that seems right in the liberal wheelhouse’ was a bit overstated. The subtext seemed to be that you wouldn’t expect anything more from a conservative.
I’m not that tuned into this, but I don’t agree that ‘the conservative ideal is to leave people to their own devices’. Conservatives aren’t opposed to helping people, they just don’t think this help should necessarily be coming from the government. As long as the government isn’t funding the movie, that wouldn’t be an issue.
That is a strawman set up in an attempt to discredit conservative thought. There are lots of ways to help people that don’t involve government intervention.
I’m not sure that Barry was making that claim…maybe just using it as an example.
So the government isn’t supposed to help people but it is supposed to encourage people to help people? There isn’t much of a leap between encouraging people to help others and then enabling (forcing?) them to help others by taking a bit out of their paychecks. I don’t know, it seems to me that a conservative individual may be more than willing to help others, but he doesn’t want the government to force that decision upon him or anyone else.
And that’s not to say there isn’t room for a conservative movement to leverage the government to help out in certain situations (security), especially abroad (political injustices).
There is a huge leap between forcing someone and not forcing. If you don’t believe, try not paying your taxes this year.
BTW, sorry about hijacking this thread. :)
So I’ll make up a scenario The government streamlines itself so we only have to pay a 5% flat tax. But the government says “You are going to have to step up and direct your dollars to some charitable organizations or this mother is gonna implode.” Well, that doesn’t work so well.
Then the government has to raise taxes by 1% and start giving deductions for charitable giving again and now those that give are paying, say, 4% tax on their gross income while those that don’t are paying 6% tax on their gross income. It’s a simplistic example, but other than the numbers being way off scale I’d argue that it wasn’t such a big leap to create that scenario where the people are once again “enabled” to give.
So to me either the government has to “leave people to their own devices” (for the most part) or else it really isn’t that great of a leap.
I guess my point is how can one feel that the government shouldn’t be involved in progressivism but then get pissy when someone else points out that strict conservatives don’t want the government to help people? It is illogical to assume that because one thinks the conservative movement is unsympathetic then one must also assume each conservative individual is unsympathetic. Just as it is also illogical to assume that because one thinks the government should be progressive one must also believe that an individual would be uncharitable of his own accord.
Okay, perhaps this is where I misunderstood you. I took your original comment to mean that conservative individuals were unsympathetic and would not be inclinded to charitable giving. Todd pointed that out when he said that, “Conservatives aren’t opposed to helping people, they just don’t think this help should necessarily be coming from the government.”
But if what you meant was that conservatives would be opposed to progressive government, then I agree.
The rub is that there are a lot of people who conflate opposition to progressive government with lack of empathy and charitable instincts.
I think the other rub is a lot of people conflate opposition to this particular conservative tenant as some sort of knock on conservative individuals. It seems to go both ways.
But sure enough, you and I seem to be in step on the argument.